Alternatives to penalty shootouts in World Cups

[Twentythreeeleven]

"Deciding a football match by penalty shootout is akin to deciding the Master's Golf tournament by a round of mini golf"

"A penatly shootout is comparable to a pubic flogging in the market square".


I'm not one of those types of people who want to see changes for the sake of change, but I think we can all agree that while penalty shootouts are great "drama" they are not really a fair way of deciding a football match. Even more so it's heartbreaking for the players that happen to miss, a lot of the times for the only reason that the keeper has guessed the right way. There a several instances of this causing players significant mental health issues later in life.

I didn't come down in the last shower either. I've been and avid follower of the WC since the seventies. If fact penalty shootouts were only introduced in 1982 were the first one robbed a great France side of participating in the World Cup final.

A better way to decide a match would be, IMHO, if the match is still drawn after extra time the team that have scored the most goals in the tournament progress.

Sure we may see one team "park the bus" so to speak. But it's better than both teams being risk adverse like we have seen time and time again. In fact they only time extra time becomes really entertaining is when one team scores first early on and they other team has to play catch up.

Going on goals scored would also see teams be more attacking minded early on in the competition (although it's not really been an issue in this world cup).

If the amount of goals scored is equalled in can then go on who got the most points in the group stage, goal difference etc.

Any other ideas?

 

[Keeps It tidy]

I really wish there was a good alternative to penalty shootouts but, there is not.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

A better way to decide a match would be, IMHO, if the match is still drawn after extra time the team that have scored the most goals in the tournament progress.

That would be an incredibly shit way of doing it in my opinion. Basically it will favour any team that has a Saudi Arabia or North Korea in their group over a team that manages to get itself out of a Group of Death scenario.

 

[Señor]

That's a truly terrible idea.

 

[Twentythreeeleven]

That's a truly terrible idea.

That's a truly terrible post. A explanation on why it's a terrible idea would be nice.

 

[Malva]

That's a truly terrible post. A explanation on why it's a terrible idea would be nice.

That would be an incredibly shit way of doing it in my opinion. Basically it will favour any team that has a Saudi Arabia or North Korea in their group over a team that manages to get itself out of a Group of Death scenario.

 

[okLaptop1]

There should still be shootouts, but instead of taking the shot from the spot like a normal penalty, the shooter should take the keeper on in a 1v1 situation, dribbling from the halfway line like he would in a normal match if he was 1v1 with the keeper. Once he takes his shot, the shooter shouldn't be allowed to touch the ball again. Also, he's not allowed to dribble backwards.

 

[Nanook]

Why are people so against penalties? Is there a more nerve-racking, exciting thing in sports?

 

[bpet15]

This has been a hot topic amongst those that only follow football during a World Cup.

To me, penalties may not be the best decider, but no one has seemed to come up with a better alternative.

It's very difficult to play past the 120 minute mark and when you do it becomes about survival, not good football.

I have heard the idea of removing a player every 5 minutes after 120 minutes until someone scores, but I think the players health would be a risk in that scenario.

 

[Twentythreeeleven]

Well it comes down to the luck of the draw really. Just like some teams are getting more rest days due to the draw. Don't see the logic in that anyway. Holland beat Spain 5-1 is a supposed group of death. If anything it would make the group of deaths more interesting in that teams would tend to go for outscoring the opposition rather than trying to nick one and close up shop.

 

[Micha]

I think the idea of this thread is very interesting. There really are not many alternatives to penalty shootouts. It is still only the players who influence the outcome, it involves skill and nerves after 120 minutes of play.
@FlawlessThaw described why goals scored in the entire tournament isn't a great idea. Other alternatives might be:
- possession: will lead to extreme Barca-ing and a snoozefest unlike anything before
- shots on target: will prompt teams to shoot from midfield to boost the statistic
- fewest cards / fouls: well, if you think pens are unfair, think of some refeering decisions

The only interesting thing I could think of is to have a jury who decides who was the "better" team. It could consist of, let's say, 10 experts who judge based on subjective criteria, what a "good" team is. Some might value tactical discipline, others attacking bravado, other indivudal skill or creativity shown, etc. If the jury is big enough, one might actually get a rather balanced outcome that most viewers could agree on. I would not favor public votes, though, because teams with bigger fanbases would have an obvious advantage.

I still would prefer penaltys, though, as the decision of a jury might be based on factors that the losing team legitimately did not put much importance on. For example, the breathtaking technical ability of Team A might be the swinging argument for a jury, while team B's focus and strength lies in a united fighting effort. In this way, an excellent performance in accordance to team B's mentality might be undervalued.

 

[Twentythreeeleven]

Why are people so against penalties? Is there a more nerve-racking, exciting thing in sports?

Nerve rack, exciting? Yes

Fair, representative of the sport? No.

 

[Moriarty]

Coin toss. That's the old school way. I know at one World Cup, they mooted the idea of adding up each side's corners and awarding the game to the team with the most. Good job that never took off.

 

[Nanook]

Nerve rack, exciting? Yes

Fair, representative of the sport? No.

If USA scored to make it 2-2 against Belgium even though they had 9 shots on target compared with Belgium's 27 would that have been fair? Nothing is ever going to be 100% fair anyway, you get 5 penalties and if you score all 5 you're highly likely to go through, if you miss 2 or 3 you're probably going out, it sounds reasonable fair to me.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

Why are people so against penalties? Is there a more nerve-racking, exciting thing in sports?

The first quote in the OP shows why. You are playing a completely different competition than the one you were playing for the previous 120 minutes. You are deciding the match entirely by the level of the teams finishing ability and goalkeeping.

 

[Kita]

After 120 minutes play sudden death with unlimited substitutions. This is the only alternative. More goals and the judge concept would not work. And the judge concept could easily be corrupted.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Multiball extra time after 120 minutes: subtract a player and add a ball every five minutes. First goal wins.

 

[tom from munich]

Me likes the penalties.

 

[Nanook]

The first quote in the OP shows why. You are playing a completely different competition than the one you were playing for the previous 120 minutes. You are deciding the match entirely by the level of the teams finishing ability and goalkeeping.

Isn't that what football is decided on anyway? Ok you could argue about defence instead of just the keeper but the team who has the better finishing ability on the day normally wins the match.

 

[Twentythreeeleven]

Another alternative would be increasing squad size to 28. If the game ends in a draw after extra time there is a replay the next day using players who weren't involved in the first match.
It would be a true test of squad strength. If games still a draw after 240 minutes, then feck knows.

 

[Blackwidow]

Me likes the penalties.

I am German - I like penalty shootouts, too...

I guess if you are from England you might not like them...

 

[Winrar]

There should still be shootouts, but instead of taking the shot from the spot like a normal penalty, the shooter should take the keeper on in a 1v1 situation, dribbling from the halfway line like he would in a normal match if he was 1v1 with the keeper. Once he takes his shot, the shooter shouldn't be allowed to touch the ball again. Also, he's not allowed to dribble backwards.

Basically this then?

 

[okLaptop1]

Basically this then?

Pretty much. Seems a slightly better way of doing it than traditional penalty shootouts in my opinion.

 

[Lynk]

I hate when people say "Penalties is a russian roulette" or "Penalties is all luck", it's not luck. It's scoring past a keeper from 12 yards, it's about as basic and as simple as football gets. What makes it brilliant is you have to factor in skill with bottle. It's the only time in the game a player is truly alone.

 

[mtk1024]

Football games should be decided by football. If too many games are decided by penalty shootouts, then I think the problem is more with the rules of the regular game than with the penalties.

The more goals are scored, the less likely it is for a game to end up with a tie. Now, the fact so few goals are scored in football compared to pretty much any other sport adds to the drama and also makes it easier for underdogs to win against favourites. But at some point, when the abilities of the competing teams have become too similar, you have to increase the resolution of the scoring. It's like in skiing or sprinting - if they were still measuring just to the tenth of the second (and didn't have photo finish), they'd have five people in first place all the time and would be wondering how to rank them.

 

[Verminator]

There isn't a better alternative to penalties.
Just prepare your team to hit the target from 12 yards consistently well, and you stand a chance of succeeding.
If the keeper saves, tough. It isn't just chance. Some keepers save lots, some hardly any, and that isn't down to luck.
Often one of them misses the target. That is not luck either.

 

[Sky1981]

"Deciding a football match by penalty shootout is akin to deciding the Master's Golf tournament by a round of mini golf"

"A penatly shootout is comparable to a pubic flogging in the market square".


I'm not one of those types of people who want to see changes for the sake of change, but I think we can all agree that while penalty shootouts are great "drama" they are not really a fair way of deciding a football match. Even more so it's heartbreaking for the players that happen to miss, a lot of the times for the only reason that the keeper has guessed the right way. There a several instances of this causing players significant mental health issues later in life.

I didn't come down in the last shower either. I've been and avid follower of the WC since the seventies. If fact penalty shootouts were only introduced in 1982 were the first one robbed a great France side of participating in the World Cup final.

A better way to decide a match would be, IMHO, if the match is still drawn after extra time the team that have scored the most goals in the tournament progress.

Sure we may see one team "park the bus" so to speak. But it's better than both teams being risk adverse like we have seen time and time again. In fact they only time extra time becomes really entertaining is when one team scores first early on and they other team has to play catch up.

Going on goals scored would also see teams be more attacking minded early on in the competition (although it's not really been an issue in this world cup).

If the amount of goals scored is equalled in can then go on who got the most points in the group stage, goal difference etc.

Any other ideas?

They're fine

If you're not England, you'll probably love Penalty Kicks.

They're not used to determine the winner, they're used "As last resort" to determine a closely balanced match, and I don't see what's wrong with it. And regarding parking the bus, it takes skills, coordination, focus, grit, etc. It's not like you can simply choose to park the bus and you'll defo ended up with PK.

 

[Sky1981]

I think the idea of this thread is very interesting. There really are not many alternatives to penalty shootouts. It is still only the players who influence the outcome, it involves skill and nerves after 120 minutes of play.
@FlawlessThaw described why goals scored in the entire tournament isn't a great idea. Other alternatives might be:
- possession: will lead to extreme Barca-ing and a snoozefest unlike anything before
- shots on target: will prompt teams to shoot from midfield to boost the statistic
- fewest cards / fouls: well, if you think pens are unfair, think of some refeering decisions

The only interesting thing I could think of is to have a jury who decides who was the "better" team. It could consist of, let's say, 10 experts who judge based on subjective criteria, what a "good" team is. Some might value tactical discipline, others attacking bravado, other indivudal skill or creativity shown, etc. If the jury is big enough, one might actually get a rather balanced outcome that most viewers could agree on. I would not favor public votes, though, because teams with bigger fanbases would have an obvious advantage.

I still would prefer penaltys, though, as the decision of a jury might be based on factors that the losing team legitimately did not put much importance on. For example, the breathtaking technical ability of Team A might be the swinging argument for a jury, while team B's focus and strength lies in a united fighting effort. In this way, an excellent performance in accordance to team B's mentality might be undervalued.

That spells "shitstorm", seriously? You put the result in the hands of judges? Go watch American Idol

 

[knack]

I agree with op that penalties arent a fair way tp decide a football match.

How about teams keep playing after the 120 minutes till a golden goal , but since players health could be a risk you do it with unlimited rolling substitutions ?

This way squad strength also comes into play as well.

 

[Sky1981]

I agree with op that penalties arent a fair way tp decide a football match.

How about teams keep playing after the 120 minutes till a golden goal , but since players health could be a risk you do it with unlimited rolling substitutions ?

This way squad strength also comes into play as well.

Or we can just do PK and let both teams decide.

Seriously, what's so wrong with PK, they're heartbreaking at times, but for every heart broke there's a joy out there. It's just a game where there can only be one winner, and like every other sports, at the end of the day it's that 0.00001percent extra that makes the difference between winning and losing

 

[DrRodo]

Theyre just fine.
You sound like blatter, trying to fix whats not broken
And i come from a country which was eliminated on penalty shootout. I loved the experience so much thrill and suspense, even tho we didnt win

 

[XdanielredX]

Well it comes down to the luck of the draw really. Just like some teams are getting more rest days due to the draw. Don't see the logic in that anyway. Holland beat Spain 5-1 is a supposed group of death. If anything it would make the group of deaths more interesting in that teams would tend to go for outscoring the opposition rather than trying to nick one and close up shop.

So a penalty shootout which although horrible is at least a fair and balanced way of ending a match is terrible and should be changed.

But the team who happened to chance getting drawn with lesser teams thus being able to score more goals which results in them winning because they scored more goals in those previous games irrespective of how the current match that is being decided panned out is a good, fair way to decide a winner of a match?

Yeah, no.

 

[jesco]

Penalties are last resort like someone commented. I think penalties are fine, the most basic portrayal of the game.

I do believe teams should be allowed additional substitutions during extra time. It would lessen risk of injuries from fatigue and give opportunity to players who wouldnt otherwise get to play in a World Cup.

 

[Reddevilboy]

The Germans won't be too pleased with this, that's for sure.

 

[RedRonaldo]

This is the worst idea I've ever heard.

 

[Reddevilboy]

"Deciding a football match by penalty shootout is akin to deciding the Master's Golf tournament by a round of mini golf"

"A penatly shootout is comparable to a pubic flogging in the market square".


I'm not one of those types of people who want to see changes for the sake of change, but I think we can all agree that while penalty shootouts are great "drama" they are not really a fair way of deciding a football match. Even more so it's heartbreaking for the players that happen to miss, a lot of the times for the only reason that the keeper has guessed the right way. There a several instances of this causing players significant mental health issues later in life.

I didn't come down in the last shower either. I've been and avid follower of the WC since the seventies. If fact penalty shootouts were only introduced in 1982 were the first one robbed a great France side of participating in the World Cup final.

A better way to decide a match would be, IMHO, if the match is still drawn after extra time the team that have scored the most goals in the tournament progress.

Sure we may see one team "park the bus" so to speak. But it's better than both teams being risk adverse like we have seen time and time again. In fact they only time extra time becomes really entertaining is when one team scores first early on and they other team has to play catch up.

Going on goals scored would also see teams be more attacking minded early on in the competition (although it's not really been an issue in this world cup).

If the amount of goals scored is equalled in can then go on who got the most points in the group stage, goal difference etc.

Any other ideas?

Erm...no offence but this is a really stupid idea. What's the point of a knock-out match then? How can you take goals from the group stages to the round of 16 or to the quarter-final etc all the way to the final if both teams are level?

 

[Twentythreeeleven]

Red devil boy, You realise they used to decide these things by the drawing of lots? At with goals scored it is based on something your team has achieved during the tournament.

 

[Twentythreeeleven]

This is the worst idea I've ever heard.

Reasons? Alternatives? Counter arguments? Or are you just going to be a simpleton?

 

[zing]

What's the incentive for teams that come into the game knowing a draw would be enough to see them through?..

 

[MikeMango]

A better way to decide a match would be, IMHO, if the match is still drawn after extra time the team that have scored the most goals in the tournament progress.

that's not a fair way to decide. Penalty shootouts are a lot more fair than this.
At least each team has the same chance.
Your way would mean that one team is "behind" from the beginning and needs to score more than its opponent. In fact, that' s a really unfair way to decide a game.